User Profile: bonesiii


Member Since: October 14, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [1] December 21, 2014 at 2:11pm

    “There is no need to concoct silly buzz words and phrases such as “scientism””

    I didn’t coin it:

    But all words did need coined at some point. ;)

    “as Evangelical and fundamentalist apologists are wont to do. That only makes these kinds of apologists more of a laughingstock than they already are.”

    More appeal to laughter fallacy. You could argue that it’s worth laughing at somebody who thinks scientism is needlessly coined. :P (Note that the word isn’t always used in a negative sense anyways; if atheists want to hold to scientism, they should own it. But it won’t do them much good as it’s a self-refuting position.)

    But really your concern should be finding the truth, not just laughing along with what a majority or whatever. People have laughed away a lot of true ideas. See also Psalm 2.

    See my past posts re: “fundamentalists.”

    I agree with the rest of what you said; and sound logic is that way. :) But of course, it must be understood that some will refuse even sound logic. All we can do is reach those who are more reasonable, reading along. :)

  • December 21, 2014 at 2:05pm

    There was really no substance to your reply, blink; it’s basically “creationism is wrong no matter what”. I’ve already corrected you on several of these claims. But let’s go through the points briefly anyways:

    -Your first response is expected, but works both ways. I say it’s your side that uses projection here. And unlike you, I don’t just say it, but have shown it. You have no sound support, but we do show sound support.

    -You conflate evolution with science.

    -”Translating” that in your second paragraph, we don’t say that evolution is a conspiracy, but a paradigm. That’s your (often repeated, often debunked) strawman.

    -Your next argument is nothing but appeal to authority. But it’s the -sound support- that makes me right on this. And there are PhDs on both sides.

    -Again you’re conflating wrong ideas by scientists (and others) with science. Science is an investigative process, and scientists within that study can and do have competing hypotheses. But if you want to loosely refer to science as the sound conclusions, that is firmly on our side, as by now you really do know. See for example:

    -See below about scientific presuppositions.

    -Re: your rehashing of falsification:
    FIND: “the broken record”

  • December 21, 2014 at 2:55am

    (Actually trying to control the whole world.)

    It also gives no objective measure of what’s better, and given the previous rule, certainly seems like there is none in the rulemakers’ minds.

  • December 21, 2014 at 2:54am

    And you actually wouldn’t have to take responsibility for them (no judgment day for even those who get away with things in this life). Atheism plus this rule could justify the hypothetical perfect crime.

    “Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.”

    No major objections here, although that “reasonably” could be used as a weasel word.

    “We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.”

    Except the last three words this just repeats the previous rule. (And it would certainly seem that the typical liberal atheist of today doesn’t care about the last part.)

    “There is no one right way to live.”

    Absurd nonsense that would invalidate all of the other rules here… and itself.

    There are different approaches for different situations, but these do have to be based on absolutes and priorities in order to make sense. This sentence is too simplistic to cover those things; its wording would enable “anything goes.”

    “Leave the world a better place than you found it.”

    This one just looks like beauty pageant politicking to make the whole list seem more innocuous. In practice, it’s too tall an order; none of us can control the whole world, so if the rest of you make it worse, did I break this rule? And that can imply actually that this rule could subtly support tyranny!

  • December 21, 2014 at 2:54am

    God is necessary (due to the causality proof) to be a person and for good to exist, and to live, and to have meaning… and even for coherent linear time… so, this couldn’t be more wrong. What they probably mean is that loyalty to God (and/or belief in him) isn’t necessary for those things, and they’re right — but it IS necessary for eternal, perfected life in heaven. :) Specifically, loyalty to Jesus.

    The Bible also teaches that the sin nature actually wars for control over people, so while even anti-Christian legalists can be “good” in a sense, they will actually have a lot more trouble at it than genuine Christians, as the Spirit grants us self-control. I have experienced this freedom, and only after I finally accepted Jesus. Nothing else worked. But I wasn’t totally evil back then either; that would be a strawman argument.

    Most likely this one is actually aimed at another common strawman argument, that when we point out (rightly) that atheism has no logical BASIS for morality, we are supposedly saying (but we aren’t) that atheISTS can’t be moral. No, we say that when they’re moral, they’re actually borrowing from a biblical worldview. :)

    “Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.”

    Pretty good all around… just note that if atheism is true, as long as you ensure you can get away with something, there wouldn’t BE consequences.

  • December 21, 2014 at 2:53am

    So likelihood DOES play a role, but we see atheists saying their view is likely despite the need to rely on such patches in many places.

    “The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.”

    Looks like scientism. But the scientific method depends on biblical presuppositions and is inconsistent with atheism. There is no logical reason to expect it to work in atheism, since they rely on true nonsense at some point in their explanation to get around the causality proof of God; that causality is infinite and thus existence has to be infinite, including God. If causality isn’t infinite, nonsense can happen, and it could happen anywhere and at any time, so laws of nature could not be relied upon.

    Actually the most reliable way of understanding everything is, again, sound logic. The scientific method when applied properly makes use of this, primarily to test WHAT natural laws are and how they interact. It cannot be higher than sound logic, so sound logic is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world. That includes verified historical sources like the record of the Global Flood, for example, in Genesis.

    “Every person has the right to control over their body.”

    So long as it doesn’t infringe on somebody else’s control over their own body (as abortion does)…

    “God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.”

    Responses (6) +
  • December 21, 2014 at 2:52am

    “Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.”
    Alright on its face, but it’s also important not to form a belief until you have sound support, and to accept whatever belief has it. “Alter your beliefs” allows for choosing a belief based on (in contradiction of #2) what you wish in the first place before you really know, a hallmark of atheists (and those of any false worldview… and sadly even some who do follow the true worldview but don’t know why.

    “Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.”

    This is farther away from alright; the latter part is very good (although it could be worded more clearly; it makes it sound like any idea you do happen to wish to be true, you shouldn’t accept even if it IS true :P), but “most likely” is in practice judged based on what people wish. We see the likes of Dawkins for example declaring God highly unlikely (despite all the evidence and some proof that he MUST exist).

    Once again, what matters is what has sound support, not what you feel is likely to be true (which is just a fancy way of saying you don’t know what’s actually true and you’re just guessing). Admittedly there’s a little room in some cases for ad hoc rescuing hypotheses; while it’s fallacious to rely on them, they can occasionally turn out to be true.

    [continued in reply]

    Responses (2) +
  • December 17, 2014 at 10:05pm

    after dictating all “his” thoughts to folks during the Bronze age
    god stopped talking to us?”

    First a few nitpicks — the bronze “age” is a bit of a myth, largely based on evolutionary belief. And God didn’t usually dictate the Bible but inspired it.

    Anyways, the Bible is long enough, man. No need to make it as long as Obamacare… ;)

  • December 17, 2014 at 9:06pm

    “Arcana, my point is,…I never even heard a “no”. I heard nothing.”

    And nobody said you would. You don’t need to hear “no” audibly to find out the answer is no. When what you asked for doesn’t happen, answer’s no.

    Big, see one of my posts farther up on this page why that doesn’t work as an argument against God (but an argument for him).

  • December 17, 2014 at 8:33pm

    “What really gets me is the account in Revelation where “the martyred saints cry out for vengeance upon those who killed them”. You would think that “being in Heaven with Jesus” would be FAR more important to them”

    Nowhere does the account say otherwise. This is a strawman (this happens a lot on this subject), and also a false dichotomy; being with our Lord is not mutually exclusive with seeking justice; in fact it implies it, since God is holy. :)

    “they would forget anything that could have ever happened to them while alive”

    That makes no sense, first because… no offense, but it seems hopelessly naive to think that you could go through martyrdom and just shrug it off! And second, while God could wipe all our memories (and some invoke a few verses to support it), it doesn’t make sense in light of the eternal rewards for good works, especially with keeping the faith in the face of ultimate persecution being at the top of the list! Even if they don’t remember the specifics, they would at least know they were martyred and this logically requires that justice needs to come to somebody who killed them.

    “It makes me see the text as “the result of an angry person in that time period having wishful thinking about a god who strikes out in vengeance towards those harming them”. It is inconsistent with the concept of Heaven.”

    Problem is this concept is in your head, not the Bible (strawman).

  • December 17, 2014 at 8:27pm

    “most don’t praise god, with joy [as they actually should], for a death”

    Another strawman; death is treated as the enemy, an intrusion caused by sin. God is the victor OVER death, ultimately. It does not make sense biblically to praise God FOR death. (Unless you mean certain judgment deaths on a violent person etc.)

    “I never understand if there is paradise to come, why even take ONE chemo treatment to fight off cancer?”

    You know, Big, at some point you have to realize that you already know enough to know God is real — demanding that you understand all the other issues is really not reasonable, though I can see why people do it, and it was the mistake I made too. :) There are many other things in life you don’t understand all the details for but you do accept because you know enough there too to know they’re real.

    Anyways, in this case the answer is pretty simple — killing ourselves is a sin too, because we may still have good to do in this life, especially for reaching the lost — especially family. Another thing is just that the drive to survive is built in, in people, and is the same reason God grants heaven, after all. Many don’t really work as hard as they should at reaching the lost, but this drive is still powerful enough that they won’t give up. Plus, of course, they love people who are left, etc. There actually are many reasons and they vary by individual.

  • December 17, 2014 at 8:17pm

    “don’t understand WHY god gets the credit for the wins and not the losses.”

    This never really confused me, but I’ve learned a lot about it, and the thing is, if you don’t seek, and you don’t think constructively about it (if you just stop at “I don’t understand it so I’ll assume it doesn’t make sense”), you can miss that it really does make sense. There’s a lot of different ways to look at it, most of them not mutually exclusive.

    One that has really intrigued me is that the causality proof (see many of my past posts if you’re unfamiliar) seems to require, in addition to the existence of God, that every possibility exists too. All bad things exist somewhere, in some sense. God is then defined as the single consciousness that is entirely self-consistent. This also means that bad things must exist that aren’t his fault too. Those people who choose loyalty to him may pass through the bad in this world, which has (due to sin) dipped into the bad of existence, but will ultimately be brought in to perfection with God. :)

    The simpler normal answer, which is also sound (and may be another way of looking at the above) is that God needed to grant freewill in order for love to be genuine, and freewill can be (and has been) abused. See Genesis 3.

    Note: in a sense, God IS given “credit” for some “bad” things (that have better overall results), so it’s actually a bit of a strawman. But the cause of the bad is ultimately sin, not God.

  • December 17, 2014 at 8:00pm

    “He expresses praise to a god….who says nothing back.”

    Strawman, Keres — the Bible doesn’t tell you to expect God to audibly speak back to you like a gumball machine (not usually and not in this life at least; he did for a few in the Bible, but it was always treated as extraordinary or for people in extraordinary roles like Mosheh). It teaches that he follows a similar system as the ancient model of patrons, who are distant to their followers; they’re expected to be loyal to the patron, and work for them, and in return ultimately the patron works for their good too.

    In this case, that is primarily eternal life (and guidance by the Spirit in this life) for those who do accept that loyalty to Yeshua. It is not light shows or sound shows on demand. You’re confusing God with Netflix. :P

    As for your story of a congregation apparently falling over themselves to get a “feeling”… Sorry, but that is way unbiblical. O_o We can already know God exists through the things that were made (you and I have been over this before, you know); there’s no need for light shows or the like, and those would likely cause worse problems like lending credence to lying cult leaders who claim to have received a special vision beyond the Bible (one message for all), and would presumably be fakeable anyways.

    Responses (1) +
  • December 17, 2014 at 7:52pm

    “don’t force your religious beliefs upon others, as the political evangelical movement is wont to do in this country”

    No they aren’t… We’re just not too big on anti-Christian beliefs being forced on us…

  • December 17, 2014 at 7:48pm

    To your other points:

    -I won’t comment on whether the doctors’ actions led to it except to say that’s certainly possible too, but that if they believed it would not work, the case is still relevant for analysis.

    -Figures of past cases would be great but is obviously beyond the scope of the news article here.

    -Christians who die despite prayer may be explained in any number of ways. Your first error is in assuming you NEED to know exactly what caused it. The Bible does not set that as a goalpost; it says God’s ways are above ours, which some Skeptics scoff at illogically, but it makes sense for an omniscient God! But we can also figure out some general, likely answers; that in those different situations other factors were at play that meant a “no” answer would produce the best overall effect for history as a whole.

    -Herb relevance is possible too, but could also be due to the placebo effect if there is in fact a positive-attitude-based reaction (to proteins generated by that mood for example).

    -It’s a false dichotomy that either you pray OR seek medical care. Nowhere does the Bible teach this. Critics of the Bible made it up (and you’ve parroted it in the usual ways). By bringing your post to that conclusion you have apparently built your criticism on a strawman. The argument was that it was evidence of a miracle (and I would say it may be), not evidence against medicine.

  • December 17, 2014 at 7:38pm

    “Medical researches have studied and confirmed the healing power of a positive attitude, regardless of the source.”

    I agree (and have concluded on my own before this) that this is one method that many of these healings might use. Another could just be automatic corrective mechanisms in the DNA that don’t really need a special trigger like a positive attitude, but may have just needed time, or something made by the cancer itself reaching a certain stage may trigger it.

    However, none of this is evidence against God, since it makes sense he would design such features, they are more consistent with his nature as good and brilliant (cue, no doubt, people forgetting about the Fall and citing bad things), and a designer really is needed to explain such functions.

    I would not necessarily ascribe such healings to a miracle in the literal, strict sense of a direct intervention, but the term is also often used of good things ultimately coming from God that couldn’t happen in a godless universe.

    On the other hand, nor can we blindly assume that they are [i]not[/i] miraculous healings of the direct intervention sort, and with a beyond-time, omniscient God, even design features can be miracles of timing still in response to prayer, by setting up the universe in the right Domino effect way to trigger the right cure because he foreknew the prayer would happen. :)

  • December 17, 2014 at 7:33pm

    Freedo, I don’t think that’s a good goalpost. How would you know they had the vision for real?

    But I’ve heard of accounts of this happening in Muslim nations.

    Even so, you’d do well to research the “goalposts” the Bible itself actually teaches and test to see if they are fulfilled, and other actually logical ones implied from its teaching, etc. When that is done, we find it passes (and no other such view does).

  • [1] December 17, 2014 at 7:29pm

    LOL, Freedo, he was speaking to Nicodemus who DID come to believe!


  • [-1] December 17, 2014 at 7:13pm

    WhoIs, notice that it says “may”, not “this is really awesome”. It was -tolerated- not encouraged, the same way Jesus said divorce for unwarranted reasons was tolerated too but not what God ultimately wanted. This is not “pro”. It’s not clearly anti- either, sure, but if God had demanded total perfection, they would likely have rejected the entire law and not been moved gradually toward perfection. Given the modern understanding of Stockhold syndrome and that they had been slaves, it makes sense they would demand this. And seeds to undermine it WERE planted, in (for example) freeing them to begin with.

    Yeah… context. ;)

    (And what you just did, acting like it’s OKAY to take things out of context, and actually imply the context can’t possibly matter, is quote mining.)

  • December 15, 2014 at 4:43pm

    Yeah……… doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out their motives for these choices in both of these movies.

123 To page: Go